Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And, that is the reason this became a problem, according to the OP, they DID NOT HAVE INSURANCE when this occurred, they only got it after they needed it. Had they had insurance, it would be in their carriers hands and they wouldn't be asking what to do. But, since they had no insurance, they appear to be looking for some escape hatch.
But the owner of the lower unit might have insurance which will cover this. If not...see my previous post.
I don't understand how there is even a question here. If your toilet leaked and damaged someone else's property, why wouldn't you pay?
Just because it might not have been intentional, nor even negligent on your part, since when does that give you the right to tell the neighbor to go pound sand?
Heck if you are driving and your car (though no fault of your own) loses control due to a mechanical malfunction and hits another persons car, do you think you should not be held responsible
You wouldn't pay because THAT'S NOT HOW THE LAW WORKS, at least not in many states. I could say the same thing if my neighbor's tree fell on my house, (its your tree, right?) or if my landlords pipe burst ruining my stuff (its his pipe.)
Your car insurance example is an apples to chickens comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John2064
In Virginia & Florida I know that you are NOT responsible for the damage in another unit. I have personally been involved so I know. Check Texas law and I'll bet it's the same.
You wouldn't pay because THAT'S NOT HOW THE LAW WORKS, .
The law doesn't prevent a neighbor from doing the right thing. We're probably talking about a few hundred dollars here, less than a lawyer's left shoe. If your moral compass always aligns with the law you might not be a decent person.
The law doesn't prevent a neighbor from doing the right thing. We're probably talking about a few hundred dollars here, less than a lawyer's left shoe. If your moral compass always aligns with the law you might not be a decent person.
So the amount of damage makes it right or wrong? What if he had an expensive Picasso, worth tens of thousands, hanging on his condo wall? Is it wrong for me not to offer to pay for his painting?
I agree that it would be nice, but right and wrong don't come into play. If he had been negligent, then the right thing to do would be to pay for it. But he wasn't negligent.
In fact, it sounds like the tenant/owner below were negligent; if they waited long enough for mold to grow, how was he to know about it?
I agree that it would be nice, but right and wrong don't come into play. If he had been negligent, then the right thing to do would be to pay for it. But he wasn't negligent.
In fact, it sounds like the tenant/owner below were negligent; if they waited long enough for mold to grow, how was he to know about it?
Right and wrong are always in play. Regardless, paying for damages that are someone else's fault might be the wiser option in this case. Calling in the lawyers for petty amounts usually enriches the lawyers to the exclusion of the warring parties. If a Picasso were involved, perhaps.
I didn't have insurance when the leak happened
but I have insurance now.
You must be in a right to insurance state. Usually insurance is mandatory except for renters.
You say "He" gave you letters. The fix letters should originate from the HOA, not the tenant below you.
His "command letters" are a little weird.
As another poster stated, mold takes time. WHO determined that mold was also your issue?
"Loss of rent" insinuates that the damage made the lower unit uninhabitable.
That a serious charge and certainly doesn't involve a one time toilet leak.
Lots of possibles here but a neutral third party needs to inspect the damage and assess the scene.
Right and wrong are always in play. Regardless, paying for damages that are someone else's fault might be the wiser option in this case. Calling in the lawyers for petty amounts usually enriches the lawyers to the exclusion of the warring parties. If a Picasso were involved, perhaps.
Your're misguided. Assume that its your tree that falls down, and hits your neighbors house, caving in the roof. Damage is in the tens of thousands of dollars. Are you still going to offer to pay because its "Right?" Your insurance company won't reimburse you, telling you that its his problem.
As another poster stated, mold takes time. WHO determined that mold was also your issue?
"Loss of rent" insinuates that the damage made the lower unit uninhabitable.
That a serious charge and certainly doesn't involve a one time toilet leak.
I don't think that the mold made the place uninhabitable. A mushroom growing on the moldy wall is certainly gross and demands attention, but doesn't make the place uninhabitable.
I think the only thing that made the place uninhabitable was that the tenant wanted to move in with her boyfriend and needed an excuse to break the lease.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You bought and don't have insurance?
